The Great Global Warming Swindle

[Cambon]

Quoted from earlier post -

 

The programme failed to point out that scientists had now explained the period of "global cooling" between 1940 and 1970. It was caused by industrial emissions of sulphate pollutants, which tend to reflect sunlight. Subsequent clean-air laws have cleared up some of this pollution, revealing the true scale of global warming - a point that the film failed to mention.

 

TONGUE FIRMLY IN CHEEK!!

 

Maybe we should increase sulphate pollution and start some global cooling - reverse the situation!!!

[Slim]

There's actually research going into that and other ways to make the atmosphere more reflective. Some quite simple ideas like steam producing systems in the ocean to fairly grand methods like large sunscreens in low geostationary orbit. Not as silly as you think..

 

As to the 2050 target, I gather the general thinking is that as our green technology research improves, we'll be able to accelerate the gains.

[Albert Tatlock]

An interesting site showing past UK temperatures, sunlight and rainfall at various stations is the Met Office Historic station data. Some of this data goes back to the early 1900's.

 

I picked three stations at random (St Mawgan, Bradford and Shawbury) and plotted the data in Excel. It is interesting that there is an increase in the amount of average sunlight (hours) measured at these stations, and a trend for increase (3 - 5 hours of additional sunlight per month). Considering one hour of sunlight falling on Earth is enough to power the entire worlds energy for one full year, it is not unfeasible that 3 to 5 hours of sunlight could easily add an average increase of 0.5 degrees.

 

I would be interested if anyone else who are interested could have a look at this data and see what they make of it.

[Chinahand]

Oh come on Albert - you've plotted THREE met stations and are already claiming you've got a counter theory for global warming - is your increase statistically significant? what's your R-squared value. Have you done a t-test to see if there is a significant difference between earlier and later data sets?

 

As I've posted before The University of East Anglia Climate Research Unit has the world's most extensive and accurate database of metrological information. These people don't just take temperatures from the UK, but from around the world.

 

This is the undated info right up to the end of 2006:

 

 

This site give info on the time series:

 

The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2006. The year 2006 was sixth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002 and 2004.

 

The record is being continually up-dated and improved (see Brohan et al., 2006). This paper includes a new and more thorough assessment of errors, recognizing that these differ on annual and decadal timescales. Increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere due to human activities are most likely the underlying cause of warming in the 20th century.

 

I thought this series of graphics all from the latest IPCC report put things into context pretty well.

 

Most interesting for me were charts 8 and 9 giving changes in summer and winter rainfall - 20% changes for the UK. That's alot.

[VinnieK]

Considering one hour of sunlight falling on Earth is enough to power the entire worlds energy for one full year, it is not unfeasible that 3 to 5 hours of sunlight could easily add an average increase of 0.5 degrees.

 

How does the world's yearly power consumption compare with the sum total of the energy required to heat the atmosphere by 0.5 degrees celsius? You can't just assume these things, call it an hypothesis and hope for the best.

 

Having said that, I do like the idea of you setting up your own climate research lab in your basement. You could call it Discount Climate Research, set up a booth in Strand Street and be the science world's equivalent of a one hour photo developers. I can see the TV adverts already: Cannon and Ball on a mock up of the costa del sol...

 

Cannon: "Eeee! Is it getting hotter Bobby?"

Ball: "I don't know, Tommy. Costs millions o'pounds and hundreds of them professors to find out that kind of thing"

Cannon: "Not w' Discount Climate Research! They'll do it for a fiver and have your results by tea time or y'money back! and if that weren't enough they'll resole y'shoes for nowt!"

Ball: "Rock on Tommy!"

 

Please do it, Albert!

[Albert Tatlock]

Well, it appears (according to the Met Office) that I am correct:

 

"Winter and autumn sunshine has increased very significantly for northern, central and south-east England since 1929, which is likely to be linked to reduced air pollution brought about by the Clean Air Acts. Most of the increase has taken place since the late 1960’s. North Scotland has had a 6% decrease in annual sunshine, which is significant at the 5% level."

 

National Climate Information Centre: Climate Memorandum No 21. A spatial analysis of trends in the UK climate since 1914 using gridded datasets (Version 1.1: June 2006)

[Declan]

Albert, I wouldn't have thought that you'd need reminding that England isb't the whole world.

[Albert Tatlock]

Albert, I wouldn't have thought that you'd need reminding that England isb't the whole world.

I agree. But this is predominately a northern hemisphere trend (where most of the warming has been occurring). I still think this is significant.

 

 

"...Perhaps of even greater significance is the continuous and profound distrust of science and technology that the environmental movement displays. The environmental movement maintains that science and technology cannot be relied upon to build a safe atomic power plant, to produce a pesticide that is safe, or even bake a loaf of bread that is safe, if that loaf of bread contains chemical preservatives. When it comes to global warming, however, it turns out that there is one area in which the environmental movement displays the most breathtaking confidence in the reliability of science and technology, an area in which, until recently, no one--even the staunchest supporters of science and technology--had ever thought to assert very much confidence at all. The one thing, the environmental movement holds, that science and technology can do so well that we are entitled to have unlimited confidence in them, is FORECAST THE WEATHER!--for the next one hundred years..."

 

George Reisman, The Toxicity of Environmentalism

[Chinahand]

Erm - your correct that clean air laws have worked - to say this is the cause of global warming and not a part of it along with increasing levels of CO2, CH4, NO2, and Halocarbons - plus troposheric ozone etc is what gets my goat.

 

Please note I posted this quite a way back - increased solar irradiance is on the list - I'm not qualified to comment on the various weightings - but I think it is reasonable to assume the people who produced the chart did - do you really disagree, Albert?

 

[Chinahand]

Erm - no its a global phenomenen:

 

 

This is the 5th graphic of the ones I recommended in this post

[Albert Tatlock]

Erm - your correct that clean air laws have worked - to say this is the cause of global warming and not a part of it along with increasing levels of CO2, CH4, NO2, and Halocarbons - plus troposheric ozone etc is what gets my goat.

I said the increased sunshine was significant - not the entire cause of global warming. Also, you cannot simply say "you're correct that clean air laws have worked" and assume this increased sunshine is all due to a "factor of the clean air act": that statement could be anywhere from 'totally correct' to 'partially correct' - as not enough research has been done yet.

 

You can throw in as many 'official' graphs as you like, but I still believe more science needs to be done until we get a much clearer picture, and better models, including taking into account the effects of aerosols/cosmic radiation on cloud formation and building these factors, and many others into the models - which could significantly impact long-range forecasts. If the most significant cause of global warming was identified in 5 years time to be down to the impact of aerosols in clouds, and less to do with CO2, won't the British Government look even more silly?

 

No one doubts that there is climate change going on, and people that refer to 'global warming deniers' must themselves be as thick as pigswill if they don't realise that firing off dire catastrophisms based on early scienctific results; and not letting the science (that is currently incomplete) win the argument; does nothing for anyone's credibility. I firmly believe that you and many others are tieing yourself to several causations that may even be discounted in the future, or whose effect will be proven to have been minimal.

 

Regardless of your own opinion, this is still a scientific debate, and not some religion.

[Declan]

[ I still believe more science needs to be done until we get a much clearer picture, and better models, including taking into account the effects of aerosols/cosmic radiation on cloud formation and building these factors, and many others into the models - which could significantly impact long-range forecasts. If the most significant cause of global warming was identified in 5 years time to be down to the impact of aerosols in clouds, and less to do with CO2, won't the British Government look even more silly?

 

But if we wait five years, and it turns out it is CO2, we'll have wasted 5 years when we could have been reducing CO2. That's really the essence of this debate isn't it? Do we act on fears that CO2 emissions are leading to Global Warming or not?

[VinnieK]

You can throw in as many 'official' graphs as you like, but I still believe more science needs to be done until we get a much clearer picture, and better models, including taking into account the effects of aerosols/cosmic radiation on cloud formation and building these factors, and many others into the models - which could significantly impact long-range forecasts.

 

The point is this: The overwhealming bulk of the science so far suggests that a decsion must be made now. Yes more studies should be conducted, and yes we should not consider the present reports the definitive answer on the matter of mankind's contribution to global warming - no one is arguing the contrary of this- but that does not then imply that we should ignore the scientific evidence that says something needs to be done now just in case, as the current evidence suggests, the predictions turn out to be correct.

 

If, by way of analogy, there were warning signs of some kind of epidemic about to hit the country, or that a large number of serious medical studies suggested that a particular foodstuff caused some horrible medical condition, wouldn't it be prudent for the Government to take action now, as a form of insurance, instead of waiting five, ten, fifteen, or however many years it takes to conclusively prove the warnings correct, by which time it might be too late to do anything but limit the inevitable damage? Of course it would, so what's the difference here?

 

In principle there is no difference but this: Big bad uncle Government is telling us to do something. Boo, and futhermore, hoo.

 

If the most significant cause of global warming was identified in 5 years time to be down to the impact of aerosols in clouds, and less to do with CO2, won't the British Government look even more silly?

This is but a diversionary tactic. Again, the point: The bulk of the evidence points to CO2, not Aerosols. That's the warning we're supposed to heed now.

 

Also, is our biggest concern here really that the British Government will look silly? and, in any case, is there really that much of a chance that all the climate scientists will in unison slap their hands to their foreheads and exclaim "Oh! Aerosols! We hadn't thought of that!"?

 

The answer is no to both questions.

 

No one doubts that there is climate change going on, and people that refer to 'global warming deniers' must themselves be as thick as pigswill if they don't realise that firing off dire catastrophisms based on early scienctific results; and not letting the science (that is currently incomplete) win the argument;

 

I was wondering when we were going back to the sanctity of science, it was overdue given that you've done little but effectively dismiss science, and scientists (apart from those who agree with you, of course) for a while now. Again, the science, albeit incomplete (although complete enough to convince the majority of the world's best minds regarding this issue) suggests that there isn't the time to dither until all the creases can be ironed out in the theory. Any legislation regarding climate change is easily reversible, and is unlikely to do as much damage as inactivity should the warnings be correct.

 

Regardless of your own opinion, this is still a scientific debate, and not some religion.

 

If by scientific debate you mean "Albert + Excel > Proper scientists with, like, published papers and doctorates and whatnot" then yeah, your side of the debate fills that criteria admirably. Otherwise, you are, dare I say it, hovering dangerously somewhere between disingenuousness and outright hypocrisy.

[Slim]

Exactly, Dr Dave said that many pages ago too.

[Silentbob]

I am still of the opinion that Global warming is caused by badgers, until someone gives me factual evidence to the contrary I will remain vigilant to their presence on this Isle.

 

Save the planet, bash a badger!!!